Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it consumes AI credits, free only on an Own Key plan, writes into Content Studio, and stays private until publish_document. The cost/credits disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express, though it omits whether repeat calls duplicate drafts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; the credit cost and publish-gating constraints each earn their place. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generating, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back (a document identifier or reference usable with publish_document). It covers persistence and lifecycle well but leaves the agent guessing how to chain into publish_document or retrieve the draft.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: lang and site are documented in the schema, and the description's reference to 'a topic' and 'Markdown document' loosely frames the required topic and title params. Title and topic remain unexplained in both places, so the description neither fully compensates nor adds syntax detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb and resource ('Writes a draft Markdown document on a topic') with the producing engine ('Anole AI writer') and destination ('Content Studio'), so the agent knows this is AI generation, not manual creation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling create_document, leaving that boundary to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the generation-then-publish workflow by noting 'Not public until publish_document', which implicitly routes to a follow-up tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus create_document or update_document, and no prerequisites beyond the site/plan note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.